If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Another hot item is the Stelly plan. If it is passed, our champs donations will no longer be a deduction. See below. I posted my opinion on the Politics page, but this is a bunch of BS!!!

No. 2 -- "Swap" taxes by raising state income taxes for many people and banning state sales taxes on groceries, residential utilities and prescription drugs.

The amendment would change taxes paid by just about anyone in Louisiana who has any income, buys any groceries or pays utility bills.

Voter approval of No. 2 would do three things:

Ban state sales taxes on groceries, residential utilities and prescription drugs. The state currently collects a 4 percent sales tax on groceries and utility bills but does not tax drugs. Local taxes on those items would remain. The change would amount to a 4 percent savings on consumers' grocery and utility bills.

Lock in compressed state income-tax brackets, raising the bar for the minimum tax and lowering the bar for the maximum tax. The changes would reduce many lower-income people's taxes and put many more affluent people into higher tax brackets. The state taxes income at 2 percent, 4 percent or 6 percent, depending on income.

Eliminate state income-tax breaks on federal excess itemized deductions such as mortgages and charitable donations. This change affects only people who itemize on their federal income taxes. The other changes affect just about every household in the state.
The plan's author, state Rep. Vic Stelly, R-Lake Charles, has said, and studies have generally agreed, that the changes would work out as an overall tax hike for the wealthiest 15 percent to 20 percent of wage earners and an overall tax cut for the rest.

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana says married couples filing jointly would break even if they earn about $72,500 to $78,000 a year. Generally, those who earn less would pay less overall tax, and those who earn more would pay higher taxes overall.

The approximate break-even income for single filers with no dependents would fall between $36,500 and $37,500, according to PAR.

Proponents say raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing taxes on necessities is good public policy. They also point to annual legislative debates over renewing the sales taxes on utilities and groceries, which expire every two years.

Proponents say bonding agencies hate the uncertainty of those "temporary" taxes, so the state pays higher interest than it would otherwise when it borrows money.

Opponents counter that the state still would have a lot of other, temporary taxes on the books.

Opponents also say voters rejected the concept of a tax swap two years and that this plan grows government without restraining spending and unfairly taxes higher-income wage earners who are not affluent.

The 2000 tax swap rejected by voters was similar but was intended to raise money for teacher raises. The 2002 proposal would raise little or no new income immediately, and would gradually increase revenues because income taxes grow faster than sales taxes.

Voting for all these amendments will amount to a huge tax increase, and further complicate any attempts to "trim" the state budget. More of the same, legislatures trying to make things simple(for themselves) instead of making the proper and hard decisions.
This thread really needs to be under the political folder, huh?